hydrosphere - jjwater.infojjwater.info/images/hydrologic_analysis_of_water... · hydrosphere•...

- -

•HYDROSPHEREResource Consultants

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF WATER RIGHTS TRANSFER

FOR APPLICATION SD-07603 into RG-2478 et al:

TRANSFER OF SURFACE RIGHTS OF TONY & KIM BOWERS, SOCORRO CO.

TO

TOWN OF BERNALILLO WELL FIELD, SANDOVAL COUNTY

SOCORRO AND SANDOVAL COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER HEARING NO. 07-053

Prepared by:

James T. McCord, Ph.D., P.E.AMEC - Hydrosphere

AMEC's Earth & Environmental

Prepared for:Pueblo of Isleta

Report Date: January 31, 2008

AMEC - Hydrosphere1002 Walnut Suite 200, Boulder, CO 80302

115 Abeyta Street Suite A, Socorro, NM 87801

Hydrologic Analysis ofWR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Confidential- Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Pagei

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 12. QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERT 23. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 34. BASES OF OPINIONS 55. EVALUATION OF WATER RIGHT AT MOVE-FROM LOCATION 75.1. Record of Use at Move-From According to NMOSE Process for Evaluation of Surface Rights in the

Middle Rio Grande Basin 75.2. Historical Surface Supply to Agricultural Lands in Socorro Division of MRGCD 8

6. HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF PROPOSED WATER RIGHT TRANSFER 96.1. Hydrologic Context 96.2. Impacts arising at move-from location 126.3. Impacts arising at move-to location 126.4. Impacts to basin depletions 136.5. Impacts to intervening reaches and connected groundwater 14

7. POTENTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF WATER RIGHTS FROM PROPOSED TRANSFER............................................................................................................................... 16

7.1. Potential Impairment to Groundwater Rights in Vicinity of Move-to Location 167.2. Potential impairment to groundwater rights in the vicinity of the Move-from location 177.3. Potential Impairment to Surface Rights within the MRG 17

8. POTENTIAL INJURY TO PUBLIC WELFARE FROM PROPOSED TRANSFER. 208.1. Increased depletions and Rio Grande Compact 208.2. Impairment of target flows from 2003 Biological Opinion 20

9. PROPOSED TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO AVOID IMPAIRMENT OF EXISTINGRIGHTS AND INJURY TO PUBLIC WELFARE 22

9.1. Measurement, Accounting and Reporting 229.2. Mitigation 23



Hydrologic Analysis ofWR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Confidential= Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map showing move-from and move-to locations 25

Figure 2. Flow chart developed by NM OSE for determination of validity ofpre-1907 rights inthe MRG basin 26

Figure 3. Map showing land uses identified in 1917 drainage survey, which indicates the move-from lands were subject to irrigated agriculture ("Cultivated Class I") in 1917 27

Figure 4. Air photo taken in 1977 indicates entire move-from parcel is continuing to be irrigated ........................................................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 5. Air photo taken in 2002 indicates most of move-from parcels is under irrigation, exceptnorthern Tract 53A that is occupied by a residential structure 29

Figure 6. Daily time series of river diversion and crop water demand for Water Year 1989, withCIR demand estimated using Penman reference method scaled to an annual CIR of 2.1 af/ac andactual diversion from USGS-published values for the Socorro Main Canal. 30

Figure 7. Schematic diagram illustrating MRGCD system components and associated surfacewater - groundwater interactions 31

Figure 8. Schematic diagram of river and MRGCD hydrologic system along the Albuquerqueand Belen reaches of the Rio Grande (looking south), which illustrates key hydrologic processesoperating in the system 32

Figure 9. The effects of increasing pumping rates on river leakage between Angostura andAlbuquerq for (a) estimated historic pumping through 2000 by all groundwater diverters,including the Town of Bernalillo, and (B) the river leakage effects of the Town of Bernalillo'spumping proposed in this application 33

Figure 10. Estimated diversions necessary to meet crop demands plotted along with actualdiversions for MRGCD's Albuquerque division (A), Belen division (B), and Socorro division(C); off-farm efficiencies ofOad & King (2005) used to computed required diversions 34

Figure 11. Pipe diagram showing average flows throughout middle Rio Grande for a period ofrecord between 1985 and 1999, with flow 2003 BO flow targets shown for comparison 35

Figure 12. Pipe diagram showing average flows at varios locations through middle Rio Grandebased on gaged flow in 1996; 2003 BO flow targets also shown for comparison 36

Figure 13. Pipe diagram showing average flows for the month of May 1996 at various locationsthroughout the middle Rio Grande; 2003 BO flow targets shown for comparison 37




LIST OF TABLES

NA



January 2008Pageiii

Hydrologic Analysis ofWR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Confidential= Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Page iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSaf Acre-foot

BO Biological Opinion

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

cfs Cubic feet per second

CIR Crop Irrigation Requirement

District Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

FDR Farm Delivery Requirement

MRGCD Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District

NMOSE New Mexico Office of the State Engineer

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

SSPA S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc.

URGWOM Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model

USGS United States Geological Survey

WAM Water Acquisition and Management Subcommittee for the MiddleRio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative ProgramYearyr




January 2008Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Town of Bernalillo together with Tom D. Stromei, and Tony & Kim Bowers have filedwater right transfer application numbered SD-07603 into RG-2478 et al. ("the application") tothe New Mexico Office of the State Engineer to transfer agricultural surface rights appurtenant tolands in Socorro County to the Town of Bernalillo groundwater rights in Sandoval County(Figure 1).

This report summarizes the opinions of Dr. James McCord, P.E. and the work-to-date performedby Dr. McCord and AMEC - Hydrosphere ("Hydrosphere") staff under his direction, related tothe hydrologic impacts of this application to transfer water rights. Our work has consisted ofthree major tasks:

• We reviewed documents provided to us by Isleta Pueblo, as well as additionaldocuments, data, and information we acquired independently via public domain literaturerelated to Rio Grande Basin hydrological characterization, hydrologic flows, andhistorical and expected future surface and groundwater use in the greater Basin ingeneral, and the Albuquerque Basin in particular.

• We acquired and reviewed of groundwater computer models developed to project theresponse of the Albuquerque Basin groundwater and Rio Grande surface water toexpected future pumping stresses.

• We applied of the Albuquerque Basin groundwater model developed by the USGeological Survey and the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) toevaluate the impacts of Bernal ill0 well pumping on groundwater levels and Rio Granderiver depletions, and we performed additional hydrologic impact analyses using historicaldata and information for the Rio Grande Basin to evaluate effects of the proposedtransfers on surface water supplies.

This report provides a summary of our work and Dr. McCord's opinions to date.

It is important to note that our analyses presented below are intended simply to show how injuryto senior rights can occur at times in this type of transfer (moving surface water rights from southof Bernalillo into the Bernalillo well field), but our analyses should NOT be construed to providea precise quantification of the magnitude of injury to senior rights. Similar to augmentationplans required by groundwater diverters in tributary groundwater basins in Colorado, it is theburden of the applicant to demonstrate how they will avoid impairment to other rights in theapplied-for transfer. Toward a goal of working constructively with the applicant to avoidimpairment to senior rights, in Section 9 we suggest permit conditions that must be met beforethe transfer application can be approved.




January 2008Page 2

2. QUALIFICATIONS OF EXPERT

Dr. James T. McCord has been retained as an expert witness by protestant Pueblo ofIsleta in theevaluation of the expected hydrologic impacts of the applications numbered SD-07603 into RG-2478 et al. He has personal first-hand knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein. If calledupon to do so, he could and would testify competently thereto.

Dr. McCord is a senior water resource engineer and hydrologist with the firm of AMEC -Hydrosphere., a unit of AMEC Earth & Environmental and successor to Hydrosphere ResourceConsultants ("Hydrosphere"), which was acquired by AMEC E&E in November 2007. AMEC-Hydrosphere is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, and Dr. McCord opened and has managedHydrosphere's Socorro, New Mexico office since 1999. The firm specializes in water resourcesplanning, water rights, and water management studies with an emphasis on the development andapplication of quantitative hydrologic analysis methods, providing consulting services to clientsat all levels of government and private sectors, throughout the United States and overseas.

Prior to joining Hydrosphere, he was an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering and Geology atWashington State University (Pullman, WA, 1989-1990) teaching courses in hydrology; a SeniorMember of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories (Albuquerque, NM, 1990-1997)working on radioactive and hazardous waste containment problems; and the Hydrology GroupLeader and Senior Hydrologist with D.B. Stephens & Associates (Albuquerque, NM, 1997-1999) working on water resource and environmental contamination problems.

Dr. McCord earned a B.S. Degree in Civil Engineering from the Virginia Tech in 1981, and anM.S. in Hydrology and a Ph.D. in Geoscience with a Dissertation in Hydrology from NewMexico Tech in 1986 and 1989, respectively. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in the stateof New Mexico.

Dr. McCord has over 22 years of professional experience in water resources management andwater quality, has published numerous articles in groundwater hydrology, co-authored thegraduate-level textbook Vadose Zone Processes (1999, Lewis Publishers I CRC Press), and wasthe lead author on Transport Phenomena and Vulnerability of the Unsaturated Zone, theoverarching vadose zone hydrology article for the on-line Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems(2003, UNESCO, www.eolss.net).

Dr. McCord's curriculum vitae, which sets forth his expertise and professional qualifications, isattached hereto as Exhibit A.




January 2008Page 3

3. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS

Based on the data and information reviewed to date, and on a quantitative evaluation of theimpacts of the proposed transfer, it is Dr. McCord's expert opinion that in general the proposedtransfer by the Town of Bernalillo will impair senior rights and be contrary to conservation andpublic welfare, unless the permit contains sufficient terms and conditions to mitigate against out-of-priority diversions and depletions. Specifically, it is Dr. McCord's opinion that:

l. The 1917 drainage survey, 1926-27 planetable survey, and all historical air photos of theparcels that we have acquired ind icate that the entire 4.114 acres of land that comprise themove-from place-of-use was continuously irrigated from 1917 to 1977. Air photos ofsubsequent time periods, as well as a field visit to the site, indicate that approximately theeastern half of the 1.177 acre Tract 53Awas removed from irrigated agriculturalproduction and replaced by a residential structure and the remainder of Tract 53A seemsto have been abandoned from irrigation. It thus appears that only 2.937 acres of theBowers property has been subject to continuous irrigation since 1917.

2. Reviewing Socorro Main Canal diversion records and estimates of crop water usesuggests that in many years the Socorro Division ofMRGCD does not receive a fullwater supply (a supply sufficient to meet crop irrigation requirements, or "CIR," fullythroughout the irrigation season). Thus, there exists periods of time when the lands of theMove-from parcel can not divert sufficient water to meet CIR demands.

3. Analysis using the NM OSE's Albuquerque Basin groundwater model indicates thatdrawdown associated with the proposed pumping at the Move-to location will not lead toa violation of drawdown criteria defined as part of the OSE's Middle Rio GrandeAdministrative Area (MRGAA) rules.

4. Bernalillo municipal well-field pumping causes lagged depletions to Rio Grande flow,and these lagged depletions can be quantified using the NMOSE Albuquerque Basingroundwater model.

5. Annual or seasonal accounting of water diversions and depletions is too infrequent toassure that existing surface water rights are not impaired due to the proposed water rightstransfer.

6. At times when Bernalillo-pumping induced net lagged depletions to Rio Grande flowsexceed the amount of divertable flows which would have been available to meet cropdemands at the Move-from location under the current conditions, those excess laggeddepletions are occurring out of priority and will impair existing surface rights.

7. The net lagged depletions due to Bernalillo well pumping may also reduce the RioGrande flows compared to pre-transfer conditions and thereby increase the frequency andamount of shortfalls to flow targets prescribed in the 2003 Rio Grande Silvery MinnowBiologic Opinion, constituting an injury to public welfare.




January 2008Page 4

8. To avoid impairment to surface rights along the reach of the Rio Grande from the Move-to location southward to the Move-from location, any approved transfer should include acondition that requires that MRGCD continue to deliver to the Move-from location, or toa closely located recharge site, the entire FDR amount historically delivered minus theconsumptive use portion transferred to Bernalillo. The volume of water historicallydelivered to the Move-from location which was OT consumed by crop or otherincidental ET should be recharged into the aquifer at a time and place similar to thehistorical deliveries.

9. To avoid impairment to surface rights, any approved transfer should include a conditionthat requires that the applicant augment surface water supplies for any time periods whenthe net river depletion associated with Bernalillo well pumping equals transferablehistorical ClR while at the same time surface water users in MRGCD are not receivingthe full supply required to meet CrR.

10. The augmentation requirement in Opinion 9 should apply to all past and future Bernalillorights that originated as surface rights within MRGCD south of Isleta Diversion dam.

11. To avoid harm to public welfare, river depletion due to Bernalillo well pumping thatoccurs during periods and at locations when Rio Grande flows are insufficient to meetflow targets promulgated in the 2003 Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Biological Opinionneed to be replaced in appropriate locations and in "real time". This condition should beincidentally met the majority of the time provided the preceding three recommendedconditions are met.

To the extent that additional data or information becomes available related to historical use at themove-from location and/or the hydrological setting and conditions in the middle Rio GrandeValley in general, and in the vicinity of Bernalillo's move-to location in particular, Dr. McCordmay expand upon and/or modify his opinions presented herein.


ll5 Abeyta Street Suite A, Socorro, NM 87801


January 2008Page 5

4. Bases of Opinions

Dr. McCord's opinions presented herein are based upon our review ofthe following documentsand information:

Blaney, H. F. and E. G. Hanson, 1965. Consumptive use and water requirements in New Mexico.New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Technical Report 32,82 p.

Chudnoff, M., 2000. City of Rio Rancho Water Rights Application RG-6745 through RG-6745-S-34 Surface Water Depletion Effects, prepared for City of Rio Rancho, 18 pp plusfigures and appendices.

Logan, L.M., and G.R. Musharrafieh, 2000. Impacts Due to Rio Rancho's Proposed DiversionAlternative on the Middle Rio Grande Basin Under Permit Number RG-6745 throughRG-6745-S-34, NM OSE Hydrology Bureau Report TDH-00-04, 13 pp plus appendix.

McAda, D. P. and P. Barroll, 2002. Simulation of ground-water flow in the middle Rio GrandeBasin between Cochiti and San Acacia, New Mexico. USGS Water-ResourcesInvestigations Report 02-4200.

McCord, J.T. and J. S. Selker, 2004. Transport Phenomena and Vulnerability of the UnsaturatedZone, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, UNESCO, www.eolss.net. 55 pp.

Morrison, T., 2006. Guidelines for the Assessment of Drawdown Estimates for Water RightApplication Processing, NM OSE Hydrology Bureau Report 06-01.

Oad, R. and P. King, 2005. Irrigation Forbearance Feasibility Study in the Middle Rio GrandeConservancy District, MBK Consulting, LLC.

Selker, J.S., C.K. Keller, and J.T. McCord. 1999. Vadose Zone Processes. CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL.

SSPA, 2002, Evaluation of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Irrigation System andMeasurement Program, prepared for NM ISC, lO5 pp plus tables, figures, andappend ices.

Sorenson, E.F., 1977. Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins, andIrrigated Acreage in 1975. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Technical Report41,34 pp.

Turney, T. C., 2000. Middle Rio Grande Administrative Area Guidelines for Review of WaterRight Applications, Office of the New Mexico State Engineer, September 13,2000.



Hydrologic Analysis of WR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Confidential- Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Page 6

Brower, 2004. ET Toolbox: Evapotranspiration Toolbox for the Middle Rio Grande, A WaterResources Decision Support Tool, US Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center,Water Resources Division, 147 pp.

WAM, 2004. Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program Long-TermWater Acquisitions and Adaptive Water Management Plan, Water Management andAcquisition Subcommittee ofMRG ESA Collaborative Program, 210 pp.

Wilson, B.C., 1992. Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins, andIrrigated Acreage in 1990. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Technical Report47, 141 pp.

Wilson, B.C., and A. Lucero, 1997. Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties andRiver Basins, and Irrigated Acreage in 1995. New Mexico Office of the State EngineerTechnical Report 49, 149pp.

Wilson, B. C. et al., 2003. Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins,and Irrigated Acreage in 2000. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer TechnicalReport 51, 164 p.

In addition to the data and information reviewed from these documents, Dr. McCord visited thesite of the Move-from location, and Dr. McCord and Hydrosphere staff under his directionacquired and utilized a variety of publicly available hydrologic data to evaluate the measure ofthe water right at the move-from location, and the hydrologic impacts of the proposedapplication on existing water rights and other users throughout the middle Rio Grande Basin.




Janumy2008Page 7

5. Evaluation of Water Right at Move-From Location

New Mexico water law states that beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit ofa water right. Characterizing and quantifying the water right at the Move-from location isrequired in order to know how much water can be transferred to the Move-to location. Thissection describes our evaluation of the water right at the Move-from location.

5.1. Record of Use at Move-From According to NMOSE Process forEvaluation of Surface Rights in the Middle Rio Grande Basin

For surface rights within MRGCD, the NMOSE has developed a checklist process to evaluatewhether a parcel of land has appurtenant pre-1907 water rights. The procedure is used by theNMOSE to evaluate water rights applications in a consistent, simple, and transparent fashion.This process (Figure 2) involves locating the subject parcel on a series of historical maps and airphotos for evidence of irrigation over time. We have followed the general NMOSE process, andas shown below the results indicate that the entire proposed move-from lands was consistentlyirrigated from 1917 through 1977. As described below, air photos of subsequent time periods,as well as a field visit to the site, indicate that Tract 53A was removed from irrigatedagricultural production.

As shown in Figure 2, to evaluate whether a parcel has appurtenant pre-1907 surface rights, oneneeds to locate the parcel and determine it is being irrigated on the following maps:

I. the 1917 Rio Grande Drainage survey

2. the 1926-1927 Planetable Survey and/or appraisal sheets

3. 1935 or 1936 aerial photograph

4. 1947 aerial photograph



7. post-1965 aerial photographs

For our evaluation, we successfully located the parcel on items (1), (2), (3), and (7). We wereunable to locate images (4) through (6), but we did acquire aerial photographs for 1956 1977,1984,1991,1996,2002, and 2005, and we located the Move-from parcel on all these additionalimages. To illustrate our findings, Figure 3 shows the Move-from parcels located on the 1917Drainage Survey map, and Figure 4 shows the air photo from 1977. Both of these images (aswell as all the air photos between 1935 and 1977) show essentially the same thing: the entireMove-from parcel was irrigated continuously over that time period. Figure 5 shows a 2002 airphoto that covers the Move-from lands, and one can see that the eastern half of Tract 53A isoccupied by a residential structure and the remainder of Tract 53A appears to have been




January 2008Page 8

abandoned to irrigation. All air photos obtained between 1991 and 2005 show the existence ofthe non-agricultural development on Tract 53A, and a field visit to the site in January 2008confirmed these air photos.

5.2. Historical Surlace Supply to Agricultural Lands in SocorroDivision of MRGCD

In addition to the general evidence of historical use at the Move-From location provided by themaps and air photos presented in the preceding section, it is necessary to evaluate the historicalsurface water supplies for the irrigated parcels. The historical water use at the Move-fromlocation can be determined by simply looking at diversion records for the San Acacia Diversiondam, and comparing that to crop water requirements for the same time frame.

The crop water requirements for the Move-from location can be computed using a variety ofapproaches. For our analysis, we employed two methods for estimating daily crop water use:

1. the URGWOM (Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model) time series for cropconsumptive use (CU) for the period 1985 - 1999; the crop CU for URGWOM iscalculated using the Pernman Reference Method (Brower, 2004).

2. the Modified Blaney-Criddle (e.g., Blaney and Hanson, 1965) method. The ModifiedBlaney Criddle model has been used by the M OSE for many years as a standardizedmethod for evaluating crop water use around the state (e.g., Wilson and Lucero, 1997) .

Both of these methods provide a daily value of crop consumptive irrigation requirement (CrR).As described in detail in Section 6.1 below, delivery of Rio Grande water to a farm headgate forcrop irrigation incurs river leakage losses and well as MRGCD canal system losses. The farmdelivery requirement (FDR) to the move-from farm headgate can be computed by dividing theCrR by the on-farm efficiency, which is estimated to be 0.7 by the NMOSE. Finally, therequired river diversion amount to fully satisfy crop water need is obtained by dividing the FDRby the MRGCD system conveyance efficiency, estimated to be 0.56 by Oad and King (2005),and 0.46 by (SSPA, 2002) for MRGCD's Socorro Division.

To determine the actual historical surface water use at the move-from lands, we compared the"necessary river diversion" (obtained as the calculated CIR of 2.1 af/ac scaled up by the on-farmand off-farm efficiencies) to the actual recorded river diversions on a daily basis. The actual usefor any given day is the lesser of: (i) the necessary river diversion, or (ii) the actual recordeddiversion. Figure 6 shows the daily time series for the Socorro Main Canal diversions andcomputed crop demand for the year 1989, which shows that there exists periods of time when thesupply is not sufficient to meet CIR demand. For example, Figure 6 indicates that there was aseveral week period beginning in June 1989 and continuing through July and parts of August inwhich the Socorro Division diversions were insufficient to meet crop demands. This illustratesan important point: annual accounting of water supplies and diversions can not be used to assessimpairment to water rights that have historically been dependent on a daily pattern of diversionand use.




January 2008Page 9

6. HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF PROPOSED WATERRIGHT TRANSFER

We employed a variety of data, analyses, and modeling approaches to evaluate quantitatively theexpected hydrologic impacts of ceasing delivery of surface water to the move-from lands andcommencing diversion of groundwater as proposed by Bernalillo in the application. Ouranalyses are comprised of two distinct components: (1) groundwater modeling to calculatedrawdowns and lagged river depletions due to pumping at the move-to location, and (2) surfacewater analysis that relies on historical gaged data, information about river and conveyancesystem losses, and crop water requirements calculated from climatological data.

As emphasized in Section 1 above, the analyses presented in this and the subsequent sections areintended only to show how injury to existing rights can occur when transferring surface waterrights from south ofIsleta Diversion Dam into the Bernalillo well field. Our analyses are NOTintended to provide a precise quantification of the magnitude of hydrologic impacts or injury. Itis the burden of the applicant to avoid impairment to existing rights or injury to public welfarebased on the actual operation of the transfer. To do this, they must first develop a plan toquantify impacts, monitor impacts, and mitigate against impairment and injury. Then they mustimplement the plan, and report to potentially affected parties the results ofthe real-timemitigation efforts.

6. 1. Hydrologic Context

The proposed water right transfer is within the Middle Rio Grande (MRG) valley and theboundaries of Middle Rio Grande Water Conservation District (MRGCD). As described inSection 5 above, the move-from water right has been supplied since at least 1917 through theconveyance system ofthe MRGCD. Irrigated lands ofthe Pueblo of Isleta ("the Pueblo" or"Isleta") is also located within the MRG and the MRGCD, and Isleta obtains water through theMRGCD system, and the Pueblo also claims rights to instream flows below the Isleta Diversionfor cultural and religious purposes.

The MRGCD delivery system stretches from Cochiti Dam in Sandoval County to Bosque delApache in Socorro county, with the river diversions occurring at Cochiti Dam, AngosturaDiversion Dam, Isleta Diversion Dam, and San Acacia Diversion Dam. MRGCD stores water inEI Vado Reservoir and releases water from that reservoir when the natural flow of the RioGrande River is not sufficient to meet the diversion requirement necessary to supply cropirrigation water to lands within the District. Isleta Pueblo draws its surface water supplies fromthe Rio Grande at the Isleta Diversion operated by MRGCD, approximately 30 miles south of theMove-to location. The move-from parcel draws its surface water supplies from the Rio Grandeat the San Acacia Diversion, operated by MRGCD and located over 50 miles south ofIsletaDiversion. We thus note that Isleta Pueblo and its diversion from the Rio Grande is locatedbetween the move-from and move-to diversion points along the river.

The MRGCD system operates by diverting river flows at the diversion dams, and distributing theriver water to farm headgates via a system of canals and laterals (Figure 7). The river reaches




January 2008Page 10

between the MRGCD diversion points experience conveyance losses in the form of seepage tothe underlying alluvial groundwater regime. The canals are generally earthen, and "leak" someof the diverted river water into the underlying shallow alluvial aquifer. At the farm headgates,water is taken from the canal and applied to the land for crop irrigation. Most of the waterdiverted through the farm headgate is consumed by crops, while some of the water applied on thefarm fields percolates past the crop root zone and recharges the alluvial aquifer, and some mayflow off the farm and either recharge the alluvial aquifer or find its way back to the Rio GrandeRiver as a surface return flow. Water-logging of lands due to canal seepage and deep percolationof irrigation water is prevented by a network of drains that collect farm tail water and intercepthigh groundwater for conveyance back to the river. Figure 7 provides a schematic illustration ofthe MRGCD system and how water moves through the system and interacts with the underlyingshallow alluvial groundwater system.

The proposed transfer involves ceasing diversion of water to farmland located in MRGCD'sSocorro division and transferring the consumptive use to community water supply wells of theTown of Bernalillo. The amount of consumptive use that can be transferred off of lands withinthe MRG is the Consumptive Irrigation Requirement (CIR) of irrigated crops in the MRG, andhas been defined by the OSE to be 2.1 acre-feet/acre/year (af/acre/year). The OSE has alsoestimated the On-farm Losses that occur on a farm in the MRG as 0.9 af/acre/year. The sum ofthe CIR and the On-farm losses equals the Farm Delivery Requirement (FOR), the amount ofwater necessary to divert at the farm headgate in order to satisfy the CIR, or 3.0 af/acre/year forthe MRGCO.

To achieve delivery of the FDR at a farm's headgate, the MRGCD must convey sufficientadditional water to the farm headgate in the river and through its delivery system to satisfyconveyance losses. Furthermore, when natural flows in the Rio Grande are insufficient to meetthe total FDR, the MRGCD must release water from storage in EI Vado reservoir to ensure thatenough water reaches the District's diversion dams at Cochiti, Angostura, Isleta, and San Acacia.

Conceptually, the total river flow at any given location required to meet the crop demands at theMove-from location can be computed as:

River Flow = River Conveyance Losses + MRGCD Conveyance Losses + On-farm Losses + CIR

(Eqn.. 1)

The River Conveyance Losses and MRGCD Conveyance Losses can also be considered"carriage water" which constitutes that portion of the flow in the river or a canal that is necessaryto meet all conveyance losses and supply sufficient water at the farm headgate to provide forbeneficial use at the Move-from location. River Conveyance Losses and MRGCD ConveyanceLosses are measured or estimated in total, but can be apportioned on the basis of acreage. Thetotal river flow past Cochiti Dam to irrigate an acre of farmland in the Socorro division averages0.0264 cfs/ac or 11 af/ac, broken down into components of flow listed in Equation 1 as follows:

CIR. CIR is formally quantified by the NMOSE to be 2.1 af/acre/year in the MRG. Assumingan irrigation season of 21 0 days, CIR amounts to an average flow of 0.00504 cfs/acre.



Hydrologic Analysis ofWR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Confidential - Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Page 11

On-farm losses. On-farm losses are formally quantified by the NMOSE to be 0.9 af/acre/year inthe MRG (the difference between the NMOSE quantification ofFDR as 3.0 af/acre/year andtheir quantification ofCIR). Assuming an irrigation season of210 days, FDR amounts to aconstant flow of 0.0072 cfs/acre and the On-farm losses average to 0.00216 cfs/ac.

MRGCD Conveyance Losses. The MRGCD system conveyance loss is the quantity of additionalwater required to deliver the FOR from the river diversion to the farm headgate, and it iscomputed as:

FDRMRGCD Conveyance Losses = - FDREff MRGCD

(Eqn. 2)

where EifMRccD is the MRGCD system efficiency.

The MRGCD Conveyance Losses between San Acacia Diversion dam and the move-from farmis 3 af/acre/year for an FOR equal to 3 af/ac at an MRGCD system efficiency of 50% (valuebetween SSPA, 2002 estimate of 0.46 and Oad and King, 2005 estimate of 0.56). Assum ing anirrigation season of 210 days, MRGCD Conveyance Losses amount to a constant average flow of0.0072 cfs/acre, or 3 af/ac.

River conveyance losses. The River Conveyance Loss is the quantity of additional waterrequired to deliver sufficient water to an MRGCD diversion. The river losses vary somewhat inresponse to riparian habitat evapotranspiration demands, and include a relatively stablecomponent associated with the hydraulic gradient to the riverside drains (as well as theinexorably increasing losses due to groundwater pumping in the basin). The Middle Rio GrandeEndangered Species Act Collaborative Program Water Acquisition and Management (WAM,2004) estimated river losses to average 110 cfs along the reach from Cochiti to Isleta, and 120cfs between Isleta and San Acacia. One can view this component of carriage water as part of theoverall "duty of water" associated with the irrigated land that allows for delivery of the fullhistorical beneficial use of water on the land. From this perspective, one can compute this dutyof water on a per-acre basis by dividing the river loss quantity by the total acreage of theirrigated lands that benefit from this carriage water. Noting that the conveyance loss for theIsleta to San Acacia reach benefits the irrigated acreage ofMRGCD's Socorro Division, we cancompute the Socorro Division lands' duty of water to cover the Isleta-to-San Acacia conveyancelosses to be 120 cfs divided by 11,923 acres (SSPA, 2002; Table 4.4) or 0.010 cfs/acre. Theconveyance loss for the reach from Cochiti to Angostura Diversion dam benefits all lands withinMRGCD's Albuquerque, Belen, and Socorro Divisions; similarly the river conveyance losses onthe reach from Angostura to Isleta Diversion benefits the Belen and Socorro Divisions. Thus theduty of water for lands for losses from Cochiti to Isleta is 110 cfs divided by acreages in theappropriate MRGCD Divisions (SSPA, 2002, Table 4.4), netting out to 0.00194 cfs/acre.Summing these amounts yields a total average river conveyance loss for lands in the SocorroDivision to be 0.012 cfs per irrigated acre, or 5 af/ac.

Again, summing the components in Equation 1 yields an average necessary net river flow pastCochiti Dam of 0.0192 cfs/acre or 11 af/ac to meet crop demands for each irrigated acre in theSocorro Division ofMRGCD.




January 2008Page 12

6.2. Impacts arising at move-from location

The proposed transfer contemplates cessation of irrigation on the move-from lands, with theresult that depletion of the crR (2.1 af/ac) at the Move-from Location will cease, as will rechargeto the aquifer in the amount of the On-farm Losses, which amounts to 0.9 af/acre/year.

6.3. Impacts arising at move-to location

As described in the application, the proposed transfer indicates that the Town of Bernalillo willpump twice the amount of the transferred CIR and return half of this amount (an amount equal tothe Cf R) in the form of wastewater effluent to the Rio Grande at a location near the Move-toLocation.

The Rio Grande is directly connected to the underlying groundwater regime hydrologically. Inother words, there is a free exchange of water between the Rio Grande and the underlyingaquifers, with water flowing between the two in response to pressure gradients. Figure 8provides a schematic diagram to help illustrate the water flows that occur between the surfacewater and groundwater systems in the MRGCD system along the Bernalillo to Belen reach of theRio Grande. Note how groundwater levels drop in the area around a pumping well, and this"cone of depression" around the well spreads radially over time, eventually lowering water levelsbeneath the river causing a diversion in the form of an increase in seepage out of the river bed.In addition, cessation of deliveries to the move-from location will impact river and canalefficiencies from the point of impact of the new river seepage due to Bernalillo pumping (move-to location) downstream to the historic point of use (move-from location).

The NMOSE recognizes the hydrologic connection between the Rio Grande and underlyingaquifers, and has been attempting to quantify the magnitude of that interaction for over 40 years.In 2000, the NMOSE adopted a modified version ofthe USGS' MODFLOW model of theAlbuquerque Basin (Barroll and McAda, 2002) to quantify impacts of groundwater pumping onriver flows. In general, the impacts occur as lagged diversions (river leakage) as illustrated inFigure 9A which shows the groundwater pumping rate over time as specified in the modelcompared to the simulated river leakage due to that groundwater pumping.

We used the NMOSE model to disaggregate the impacts of pumping the Bernalillo well fieldfrom the pumping of other entities (e.g., the city of Albuquerque, domestic wells, and others).Figure 9B presents the model-calculated change in river leakage due to Bernalillo well pumping,showing the impact of full-development of Bernalillo's permit to pump 12.34 af groundwaterannually as proposed in the application. Notable in Figure 9B is the extreme lagging betweenwhen pumping occurs and when the impacts of that pumping are felt at the river. Because of thelagging effect, even if Bernalillo completely shuts off their wells, the river will continue to leakfor a long period of time in response to past pumping. It is this inability to "shut off' orimmediately reduce river leakage that leads to the possibility of out-of time or out-of-amountdiversions that will impair existing surface rights.

Water pumped from the Bernalillo wells will be used for municipal purposes, and a portion ofthat water will be returned to the Rio Grande River in the form of treated wastewater. Due to the




January 2008Page 13

lagging effect, the amount of water discharged to the river from the Bernalillo wastewater willexceed the impact of pumping on the river for many decades. However, the impact of pumpingon the river will increase with time and eventually will equal the quantity pumped; at that timethe net impact on the river will be the total pumped less the return flows. Thus, from that pointforward, the potential will exist for out-of-priority diversions at certain times and under certaincircumstances, and that potential will increase with time.

The OSE Guidelines for Review of Water Rights Applications in the Middle Rio GrandeAdministrative Area (Tumey, 2000) allow for lease of water rights held for the purpose ofoffsetting future depletions until those water rights are necessary to offset surface waterdepletions caused by groundwater pumping. Under this provision, the Town may lease all orpart of that portion of its return flows that are surplus to its offset requirements at any point intime. If the point of use for this leased water is above the point where water was diverted to theMove-from location, then that lease will increase the likelihood that out-of-priority diversionswill result from the transfer. Because of this potential and because these transfers are permanent,our analyses below are based on the ultimate steady-state impacts of the transfer.

6.4. Impacts to basin depletions

The OSE requires that irrigation cease under the water right acquired for offset on the Move-from land, except according to the lease-back provisions of the MRGAA Guidelines (Turney,2000). This requirement is intended to insure that the "new" future depletions arising from useat the Move-to location will be offset by the cessation of the "old" historical depletions at theMove-from location so that the overall water balance in the basin will remain unchanged by thetransfer. However, absent monitoring, accounting and enforcement, this requirement is notsufficient to insure that depletions are unchanged. In fact, there are at least three ways thatdepletions can be increased.

• The first is if the Move-from lands are re-irrigated with other water.

• The second is if the on-farm losses (FDR minus CIR) that are no longer delivered tothe Move-from location, and the carriage water historically associated with deliveryof the FDR to the Move-from location is no longer recharged in the interveningreaches, and these quantities of water are used instead to irrigate new lands or otherlands from which water has previously been transferred.

• If any unleased water associated with excess return flows by Town of Bernalillo areused directly or indirectly to irrigate new lands or extend the irrigation season.

Ifno return flow credits are allowed, the OSE will permit the applicant to divert only the CIRamount. If return flow credits are allowed, the OSE will permit the applicant to divert the CIRplus any return flow credits. In either case, the direct effect at the Move-to location will be anincrease in leakage from the river up to the amount ofthe CIR. Prior to the transfer, MRGCDwould deliver the FDR to the Move-from location, thus the change in streamflow below theMove-to location after the transfer will be the sum of both effects, a reduction equal to thetransferred CIR plus the pre-transfer FDR (and associated carriage water). This flow reduction




January 2008Page 14

will reduce conveyance efficiencies in the intervening reaches between the Move-to location andthe Move-from location.

The physical impact on the river is complicated because the OSE will allow the applicant to takeadvantage of the long lag times between pumping and the impact ofthat pumping on the river byleasing consumptive use water rights that are not yet necessary to offset the depletions to theriver. The application does not specify if such leasing will occur and, if it does, at what timesand what locations it will occur.

The transfer will have no impact on the water supply available to MRGCD at Cochiti Diversion,so MRGCO will be able to store the FOR and associated conveyance losses in EI VadoReservior. However, when MRGCD delivers water to users below the Move-to location, it willhave to satisfy the actual net losses arising from the combined effect of the pumping, return flow,and leasing operations during the irrigation season. (Because of lagging, leakage from the riverduring the irrigation season will consist of a pro rata portion of the annual leakage.) Initially,and perhaps for a considerable period, assuming no lease-back is done, the net effect on the riverwill be substantially smaller than the CIR at the Move-from location. However, if the historicalFOR is not moved through the river and canal system to the Move-from location, the river andcanal conveyance efficiency for the remaining rights will be reduced. Additionally, ifthere islease-back, the location ofthat leaseback consumption will again modify the efficiency of one ormore impacted reaches.

Because under historical OSE practices no monitoring or accounting of the fate ofFDR has beenrequired or done, it is not clear what happens to the foregone FOR under post-transferconditions. The best that can be done is to make some "educated guesses." The most likelyoutcome of a transfer is that the foregone FDR is temporarily stored in EI Vado Reservoir andthen used 1) to spread onto new lands under the MRGCD Water Bank and its District Rights, and2) to extend the irrigation season for all lands in the system. One consequence of this sort of re-use of the FDR is that overall depletions in the basin will be increased compared to pre-transferconditions. Note that the incremental impact of individual transfers is small, but taken as awhole, which they must be, the impact is potentially significant.

6.5. Impacts to intervening reaches and connected groundwater

Without mitigation, the proposed transfer impacts water rights and hydrologic conditions in riverreaches between the Move-to location and the Move-from location (intervening reaches) in thefollowing ways.

As described above, the on-farm losses (FDR minus CIR) foregone on the Move-from landscould be stored and re-applied to new lands, used to extend the irrigation season for existingirrigated lands, or spilled. This would lead to cessation or re-timing of the passage ofFDR andits attendant conveyance water through some or all ofthe intervening reaches, which will changethe pattern of flows in the intervening reaches compared to the pre-transfer conditions. At timeswhen the FDR and conveyance water flow is reduced, compared to pre-transfer conditions, theefficiency of the system will be reduced because the remaining physical losses below the Move-to location will be shared among fewer irrigated acres.




January 2008Page 15

Changing the pattern of delivery of FDR will also change the pattern of recharge of the all uvialaquifer, by conveyance losses, relative to the pre-transfer conditions. That recharge eventuallyseeps back to an MRGCD drain where it can serve as a source of supply for downstreambeneficial use, or find its way past the San Marcial gage to Elephant Butte reservoir where itcontributes to New Mexico's obligations under the Rio Grande Compact.

The transfer places the net impact of pumping in the upper portion of the intervening reaches,which affects flows in the intervening reaches. Depending on the pattern of return flows and anyleasing of offsets, the transfer could result in a temporary increase in flow, relative to pre-transferconditions, in the intervening reach. Even if return flows are produced and credited to thetransfer, as the lagged impacts of pumping on the river increase, the leakage will eventuallyexceed the credited return flows and the net impact on the river will become a loss. Fluctuationin pumping rates (due to daily and seasonal variations in consumer water demand) will changereturn flows which in turn will change the water balance at the Move-to location and can causelosses to occur temporarily even when the long-term balance is positive. When the net effect ofthe transfer is a river loss, the transfer will reduce flows in the intervening reach by the amountof the loss.

The overall impact on river flows in the intervening reaches will equal the foregone FDRdelivery and associated conveyance water plus any river loss resulting from the net effect ofpumping, return flows and leasing operations.


115 Abeyta Street Su ite A, Socorro, NM 8780 I


January 2008Page 16

7. Potential impairment of water rights from proposedtransfer

We can define impairment to valid, existing surface rights on the Rio Grande to occur when thesurface water supply to those rights under the post-transfer hydrologic regime is less than theavailable supply would have been under the pre-transfer hydrologic regime. Specifically, animpairing supply shortage occurs under two conditions:

1. The existing right experiences an increased frequency of less-than-full supply, and

2. when a supply shortage occurs, the magnitude of the supply shortage is greater than itwould have been prior to the transfer.

Middle Rio Grande Administrative Area Guidelines (Turney, 2000) define impairment togroundwater rights to occur when average rates of drawdown exceed 2.75 ft/yr in non-criticalareas. The OSE recommends that groundwater drawdown analyses be undertaken using theOSE's Albuquerque Basin groundwater flow model.

Below we present a variety of analyses that demonstrate that both modes of impairment tosurface rights will occur should the proposed transfer be approved without suitable terms andconditions. In the following subsections, we first focus on the impairment to groundwater rightsin the vicinity of the Move-to location, then on impairment to groundwater rights impairment inthe vicinity of the Move-from location, and then on impairment to surface rights within theMRG, considering the direct impacts from flow reductions on water rights in the interveningreaches. Surface water rights can also be impaired indirectly due to the requirements of the RioGrande Compact and the Endangered Species Act; these indirect impacts are addressed in thesubsequent section on injury to public welfare.

7.1. Potential Impairment to Groundwater Rights in Vicinity ofMove-to Location

The OSE Albuquerque Basin groundwater model was run to evaluate impairment to groundwaterrights. Specifically, we ran the model for two scenarios: (i) a "baseline" model that accountedfor all historical pumping through the year 2000, with extension in which 2000 annual pumpingwas replicated for an additional 40 years., and (ii) "post-transfer" model, in which all conditionsfrom baseline model held constant except for an additional 12.34 af/yr were pumping annualfrom the Town of Bernalillo well field.

The results of this analysis indicates that the pumping associated with the proposed transfer willnot lead to violation of drawdown thresholds defined in the OSE's MRGAA rules (Turney, 2000;Morrison, 2006) for any wells, including those ofIsleta Pueblo.




January 2008Page 17

7.2. Potential impairment to groundwater rights in the vicinity ofthe Move-from location.

If the appurtenant FDR ceases being delivered to the Move-from lands, there will be a reductionin recharge from on-farm losses which may lead to a lowering of groundwater surface at theMove-from location. This amount of drawdown, however, will be very slight and not likely toexceed allowable economical or physical drawdowns promulgated by the NM OSE (Morrison,2006).

7.3. Potential Impairment to Surface Rights within the MRG

Direct impairment of surface water rights within the MRG can occur as a consequence of theproposed transfer due to out-of-priority diversions arising from river leakage induced bypumping at the move-to location.

In addition, indirect impairment of surface water rights can occur as a consequence of thetransfer if the transfer increases shortfalls to Compact deliveries or increases shortfalls to targetflows set by the 2003 Biological Opinion (BO). These indirect impairments are discussed inSection 8, which addresses impairment to public welfare.

To understand and quantitatively characterize the potential impairment to existing rights due toout-of-priority diversions, it is helpful to develop a foundational understanding of how theMRGCD treats priority of water rights. Aside from providing surface water to the middle RioGrande Pueblos (including Pueblo of Isleta) in the first two weeks of November followingcessation of deliveries to all non-pueblo lands after October 31, the District generally operates ina fashion in which all water users are treated equally. In other words, water users who hold Prior& Paramount rights, pre-1907 rights, and "District" (1939) rights are all treated equally in termsof delivery priority. This operational scheme means that in water-short years (when actualavailable surface supply falls short ofMRGCD river diversions requirements to providemembers with the full FDR), MRGCD "spreads the shortage" among all lands, regardless ofwater right priority (Policies and Procedures of the MRGCD 1) Given this mode of operation,any hydrologic impact within the MRGCD system will eventually be borne by all water users.

A surface water supply shortage for any particular location would be considered to occur for anytimes that Rio Grande native flows plus releases of stored MRGCD water (including MRGCDSan Juan - Chama water) are insufficient to meet the river diversion demands plus riverconveyance losses.

To illustrate how a supply shortage occurs, we have compiled historical data on river diversionsto the MRGCD system and compared these to estimated irrigation demands for each of theAlbuquerque, Belen, and Socorro divisions ofthe MRGCD for the period from 1985 to 1999.Our demand estimates were developed using the URGWOM daily consumptive use estimates

1 http://mrgcd.comlcms/kunde/rts/mrgcdcomldocs/828771 075-04-19-2007 -08-S3-09.pdf


lIS Abeyta Street SuiteA, Socorro,NM 87801

Hydrologic Analysis ofWR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Conjidential- Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Page 18

scaled to a CIR of2.1af/ac and acreages reported as part of the URGWOM on-line data sets inconjunction with acreage values reported by SSPA (2002) in their MRGCD efficiency study. Inaddition, we needed to employ MRGCD system conveyance efficiencies to determine riverdiversion demands. Off-farm MRGCD efficiencies have been computed by both SSPA (2002)and Oad and King (2005), and there is a fairly significant disparity between the two estimates".Figure 10 shows the historical river diversions compared to the estimates of historical riverdiversion demand computed using the Oad and King (2005) efficiencies (demands would behigher if we used the SSPA efficiencies). This chart clearly illustrates that surface water supplyshortages (whenever the demand curves in Figure 10 crosses above the supply curves) occurregularly at each of the three MRGCD divisions considered (this was previously noted in ourevaluation of the water right at the Move-from location; see Figure 6).

As discussed above, whenever surface water supply shortages occur, MRGCD operates theirsystem of shortage-sharing, with all surface water users receiving less than their full supply.Whenever this condition occurs, the transferred water right is not entitled to the nominal fullsupply (CIR of 2.1 af/acre/year) which is proposed as the basis for this transfer. But, because ofthe long lag times in the groundwater system, the river leakage due to Bernalillo well pumpingcontinues unabated. Absent any mitigation, Bernalillo continues to exercise their full riverdiversion3 while other valid surface rights are being shorted. This constitutes an out-of-prioritydiversion, and thus an impairment to existing surface rights throughout the MRGCD system.

In the absence of seeing the Town's hydrologic report as part of this application, we havereviewed past hydrologic reports presented as part of the City of Rio Rancho's application todivert groundwater for RG-6745 through RG-6745-S-34 (Chudnoff, 2000; Logan andMusharrafieh, 2000), and found that the hydrologic analyses failed to address impairment toexisting rights on a sufficiently fine time step to address temporary shortages. The impairment-to-surface-supplies analyses in these two reports undertake an annual water accounting ofstreamflow depletions due to well pumping. Chudnoff (2000) correctly notes under whatconditions injury to existing rights will occur ("only during periods of shortage, or ifgroundwater depletions caused by Bernalillo create new shortages" on p. 12), but again heemploys an end-of-year accounting to show that Rio Rancho's portfolio of surface water offsetscombined with return flows from the Rio Rancho wastewater treatment plants exceeds the annualriver depletions due to well pumping (Table 6 in Chudnoff, 2006).

The permit that resulted from this Rio Rancho application (Thirteenth Judicial District, State ofNew Mexico, 2003) includes conditions of approval that would required quarterly monitoringand reporting of stream depletions. I have also reviewed a few recent OSE permits to the Town

2 Oad and King (2005) reported a system wide off-farm conveyance efficiency of 56%, whereas SSPA (2002) brokeit down by division with the following estimates: Cochiti =19%, Albuquerque = 37%, Belen = 57% and Socorro =46%.

3 We have assumed, given no other information, that unused offsets will be fully leased to a location at or above theMove-to location as allowed under the OSE's MRGAA rules.




January 2008Page 19

of Bernalillo for RG-24784, and I found permit conditions that included an annual pumping limit

and monthly measurement and reporting of return flows. It is my opinion that conditions such asthese are not sufficiently protective of existing rights. While they will help assure that NewMexico's delivery obligations under the Rio Grande Compact are not detrimentally impacted bythe transfer, farmers with existing rights who experience occasional supply shortages are in noway "made whole" by the impairments that occur during those shortages.

To illustrate how the annual accounting method fails to identify and quantify potential injury toexisting rights, refer again to Figure 6 which provides measured diversions and computeddemands (as described above) on a daily basis for the Socorro division for the 1989 irrigationseason. Again, impairment due to the Bernalillo river depletions would occur only for thoseperiods when the diversions necessary to meet the full system demands exceed the measureddiversions. We thus see (Figure 6) that early in the irrigation season, full crop demands arebeing met and therefore Bernalillo's depletions do not occur out-of-priority for this period. Wecan also infer that in early late June through July and part of August, the Bernalillo depletionsmay cause an increased supply shortages. During these out-of-priority periods, Bernalillo wouldneed to apply additional offsets to the river (see terms & conditions section below). If one hadundertaken a similar analysis with annual (instead of daily) accounting, these out-of prioritydepletions would not have been accounted for.

4 Transfer permits reviewed included SD-04538 into RG-2478 and SD-06426-ammended into RG-2478.




January 2008Page 20

8. Potential injury to public welfare from proposed transfer

8. 1. Increased depletions and Rio Grande Compact

Cessation of irrigation at the move-from location is intended to eliminate depletions fromirrigation on those lands. This reduction in basin depletions is intended to offset new depletionsat the move-to location and use. Cessation of irrigation at the move-from location results in thecessation of delivery of the FDR to the farm headgate at that location. If the Move-from landsare again irrigated after the transfer without retirement of another water right, or if the FDR thatforgone on the Move-from lands is used to irrigate other lands, then the net effect of the transferwill be to increase overall basin depletions. Use of the FDR on other lands can occur in twoways, by using it to irrigate new lands, or by using it to extend the irrigation season on existingirrigated lands compared to the pre-transfer condition.

The CIR on the move-from lands is quantified by the OSE as 2.1 af/acre/year. [fthe move-fromlands are re-irrigated (without lease-back or transfer-in of another valid existing right) or if theforegone FDR is applied to other lands, the depletions in the basin will be increased by thisamount. Increased depletions in the basin will accumulate as a reduction in any accrued surplusas accounted under the Rio Grande Compact. This will increase the likelihood of restrictionsunder Article VI or Article VII. Such restrictions would impact all water rights in the MRG.

8.2. Impairment of target flows from 2003 Biological Opinion

Flow reduction in the intervening reaches will compromise the ability to meet flow targets set inthe 2003 Biological Opinion (BO) for the Rio Grande silvery minnow. The BO includedrequirements that flow targets be met at certain times at particular locations along the RioGrande. The BO specified flow targets at three locations within the impairment area: CentralAvenue Bridge in Albuquerquee, the river below Isleta Diversion, and the river below the SanAcacia Diversion. Based on historical flow data, we have developed pipe diagrams of the riverto illustrate that the BO-prescribed flow targets at Isleta and San Acacia are missed with somefrequency (Figures 12 -14). Three separate pipe diagrams were constructed:

• Figure 11, using the average of all gage data for the period of record between 1985and 1999

• Figure 12, using the average of gage data for 1996

• Figure 13, using the average of gage data from May 1996

These figures help emphasize that when looking at long-term averages, it is easy to overlookshortfalls, whereas when "zooming in" on particular period, the possibility of impairmentbecomes much more evident.

Without mitigation, the proposed transfer changes the timing and magnitude of flows in theintervening reaches. In some reaches, at some times, flows will be reduced. Pumping at the




January 2008Page 21

Move-to location causes lagged diversions to the Rio Grande. To the degree that thesediversions are not offset by return flows, they deplete the flows of the Rio Grande below thelevels that they would have been under pre-transfer hydrologic conditions and thus may cause orexacerbate shortages of flow at the locations and at the times specified in the BO. Re-timing orrelocation of the delivery of foregone FOR and its associated conveyance water will change themagnitude, timing and location flows compared to pre-transfer conditions, which may cause orexacerbate shortages of flow at the locations and at the times specified in the BO. As describedabove, delivery of the FOR and its associated carriage water to the move-from location willincidentally contribute to the river's ability to meet flow targets at the Central Avenue and Isletalocations.

Injury to public welfare from the Bernalillo transfer will occur when the net effect of the transferis a flow reduction below the Move-to location (considering the effect of leakage, return flows,leasing and foregone FDRJconveyance water) when either one of the flow targets is not beingmet or supplemental water is being released to meet the targets. Increased shortfalls in meetingthe targets due to the proposed transfer translates into an increased requirement for supplementalwater supplied from storage by state or federal agencies under the post-transfer hydrologicregime. This increase in supplemental water demand, which must be paid for through taxpayerfunds, constitutes an injury to public welfare.

The measure of this injury at any ofthe flow target locations by this mechanism is the lesser ofthe instantaneous total net effect of the proposed transfer above that flow target location and theflow deficit at that flow target location. The total impact on stream flow at the Isleta diversiondam is the sum of FOR, carriage water, and CrR, or approximately 0.03 cfs/acre for move-fromfarms located in the Socorro Division. While for this transfer, or any other small transfer, thisflow impact would be small and immeasurable. To put this injury in context, the cumulativeeffect of thousands of acres of transferred water rights out ofthe Socorro and Belen divisions iseasily sufficient water to meet most, ifnot all, of the in-stream flow requirements set out in the2003 Biological Opinion.

Further, injury to surface water rights could occur if insufficient public water resources areavailable to meet the flow targets and curtailment of surface water rights was required under theauthority of the Endangered Species Act.


115 Abeyta Street Su ite A, Socorro, NM 87801


January 2008Page 22

9. Proposed Terms and Conditions to Avoid Impairment ofExisting Rights and Injury to Public Welfare

Above we have clearly demonstrated how impairment to existing rights and injury to publicwelfare will occur if the proposed transfer is approved with no provisions to mitigate against thepotential impairment. Toward a goal of working constructively with the applicant to avoidimpairment to senior rights and injury to public welfare, here we propose a series of permit termsand conditions that must be met before the transfer application can be approved.

By implementing these terms and conditions, the applicant will adequately guard againstimpairment to existing rights in the system, including those of the Pueblo ofIsleta, as well asinjury to public welfare associated with the 2003 BO flow targets. In addition, the public welfareissues associated with the Rio Grande Compact will incidentally be protected by these terms andconditions.

The basic thrust of our recommended terms and conditions is that Bernalillo's diversions andreturn flows be measured and/or estimated on a daily basis, and then using these estimates indaily water accounting to assess and mitigate for potential impairment to existing rights andpublic welfare as described in Sections 7 and 8 above. Before listing our recommendedconditions of perm it approval, we first define the various flow components necessary toimplement the daily water accounting.

9.1. Measurement, Accounting and Reporting

Pumping Rate-To be measured by a total izing meter acceptable to the OSE on each well.Values will be recorded daily., and reported as average daily rate in CFS.

River Leakage Rate-To be calculated as the average monthly leakage rate by the NM OSEAlbuquerque Basin model. Negative values represent a diversion from the river. Calculated andrecorded monthly as ofthe last day of the month. Reported as average monthly rate in CFS,which will be employed as an average daily flow rate in subsequent water accounting.

Return Flow Rate-To be measured at each outfall by a totalizing meter acceptable to the OSE.Positive value representa an accrual to the river. Flow rates will be recorded daily and reportedas average daily rate in CFS.

Leasing Impact Rate-To be calculated as the net impact on the river caused by leasing ofunused offsets. Negative values represent a diversion from the river. To be reported as averagedaily rate in CFS.

Net Return Flow Rate-To be calculated as the Return Flow Rate plus Leasing Impact Rate,calculated on a daily basis. Positive values represent accrual to the river. To be reported asaverage daily rate in CFS.




January 2008Page 23

Net River Impact Rate-To be calculated as River Leakage Rate plus Net Return Flow Rate,calculated on a daily basis. Positive values represent accrual to the river. To be reported asaverage daily rate in CFS.

Cumulative River Impact-« To be calculated as the cumulative amount of Net River Impact Ratetimes 1.9835 (conversion from CFS-days to at) for the preceding running 12-month period. Tobe reported as a total volume in acre-feet.

Actual Farm Delivery Rate-To be calculated as the product of the average farm delivery ratefor the Belen or Socorro Division and the transferred acreage. To be reported as daily rate inCFS.

Actual Farm CIR Rate-To be calculated as 70% of Actual Farm Delivery Rate. To be reportedas average daily rate in CFS.

Cumulative Actual CIR- To be calculated as the cumulative amount of Actual Farm CIR Ratetimes 1.9835 for the preceding running 12-month period. To be reported as a total volume inacre-feet.

Farm Demand Rate- Calculated daily using appropriate method (e.g., Modified Blaney-Criddle or Penman Monteith) scaled to annual CrR of 2.1 af/ac. To be reported as daily rate inCFS.

Farm Delivery Shortfall Rate-To be calculated as the Actual Farm Delivery Rate minus theFarm Demand Rate, on a daily basis in CFS.

Farm Delivery Mitigation Rate-To be calculated as the Actual Farm Delivery Rate plus the NetRiver Impact Rate.

Flow Target Shortfall Rate-To be calculated as that amount of water necessary to be added tothe river at the Move-to location in order to meet any shortfall between river flow and flow targetset by the 2003 Biological Opinion, at any point below the Move-to location, and in addition thatamount of water necessary to be added to the river to replace any amount of water flowing pastthe Move-to location that has been released from storage for the purpose of mitigating shortfallsto flow targets set by the 2003 Biological Opinion at points below the Move-to location.

9.2. Mitigation

Deed Restrictions-There must be deed restrictions on the Move- from lands that prohibit re-irrigation of that land with water coming from anything other than valid lease-back or transfer-inof another valid existing right. This deed restriction must be in effect until an adjudication of theMiddle Rio Grande has been completed and the basin is under administration. After completionof an adjudication, the lands may be re-irrigated in priority based on the transfer-in of anadjudicated right or newly appropriated available water.

Supply Shortages-For any time period no greater than three days in length in which MRGCDsupplies to the Belen or Socorro division fall short of calculated demands (Farm Delivery



Hydrologic Analysis ofWR Transfer under Hearing No. 07-053Privileged and Confidential - Attorney Client Work Product

January 2008Page 24

Shortfall Rate is negative) and the Net River Impact Rate is negative, the applicant must augmentRio Grande flows by an amount equal to the smaller of the amount of any shortfalls plus anytransit losses between the Move-to location and the location of any shortfall, to a maximum ofthe magnitude of Net River Impact Rate.

Maintenance of Deliveries-To keep MRGCD from using water accruing to the river as a resultof the transfer for re-irrigation or extended irrigation of other lands, the applicant must call fordelivery of the Farm Delivery Mitigation Rate to the Move-from lands, and divert that water intoa recharge well or gallery on or near to those lands. This mitigation action will incidentally helpaddress the potential for impairment due to out-of-time delivery of carriage water.

Instream Flow Targets-At such times when the Net River Impact Rate is less than zero, theapplicant must augment flows of the river at the Move-to location in the amount of the shortfallplus any transit losses between the Move-to location and the location of any shortfall, to amaximum of the magnitude of Net River Impact Rate.

Restriction to CIR Rate-At such times when the Net River Impact Rate is greater than theActual Farm CIR Rate the applicant shall augment the river in such amount to make up thedifference.

Restriction to Actual CIR-- At such times when the Cumulative River Impact is greater than theCumulative Actual CIR the applicant shall augment the river in such amount to make up thedifference.



hydrosphere - jjwater.infojjwater.info/images/hydrologic_analysis_of_water... · hydrosphere•...

Documents