(When you are ready to join the national and local Sierra Club, please click the bear on our home page. To bear.)
Sierra Club® and "Explore, enjoy and protect the planet"® are registered trademarks of the Sierra Club. © 2006 Sierra Club. The Sierra Club Seal is a registered copyright, service mark, and trademark of the Sierra Club
By Sigmund Silber
From Rio Grande Sierran, March/April 2008
It is getting warmer in New Mexico. But is New Mexico adequately addressing this temperature trend? It may be changing our water situation. It may have significant impacts on agriculture in New Mexico. Records show an increase in temperature statewide of 0.08° F per decade or about 1° F per century. For Albuquerque there are less years of data but the trend is greater, i.e. 0.23° F per decade; that translates into 2.3° F per century, which is a lot, and some predict that the rate of temperature increase will be on the rise.
A Dragonfly School student and her parents pick up trash in the Santa Fe River corridor. Mayor David Coss and the Santa Fe Watershed Association advocate restoring flow to the river, which is dammed to provide municipal water – a scenario likely to become more common as NM water supplies are impacted by climate change. (Photo by Julie Doolittle)
One has to be careful about drawing conclusions with data. We know there are multi-decadal cycles related to Pacific and also, amazingly, Atlantic sea surface temperatures. Nevertheless, it appears as if the state is getting warmer. For December through February, the trend in Albuquerque is 0.33° F per decade.
Warming is important because most of our precipitation comes from frozen moisture that either falls as snow or melts and falls as rain. Although water in our refrigerator freezes at 32° F, it takes much lower temperatures – often as low as -20° F – for the fine, pure particles of water in our clouds to freeze.
Summer clouds rise when they are warmed, and eventually at higher altitudes the temperature is cold enough for the moisture to freeze and fall as melted snow, i.e. rain. So Southern New Mexico may not have a reduction in precipitation unless the monsoon is negatively impacted. But of course much of Southern New Mexico depends on Rio Grande and Pecos River water. And rates of evapotranspiration (evaporation from surfaces and transpiration by plants, which include trees) will increase as the temperature rises.
The clouds that stay close to our mountains and produce snow in the winter need very cold temperatures near the ground in order to make snow, and a warming trend raises the question of whether glaciation will take place as often as it has in the past. Will more moisture simply pass over the mountains rather than falling as snow or rain where it can feed the Rio Grande and Pecos River? Right now perhaps 30% of the moisture in our clouds passing over our northern mountains precipitates. That percentage may decline due to warmer temperatures as well as interference by small particles from coal-based power plants.
Not everyone agrees that the total winter precipitation (snow plus rain) in our northern mountains will decline, but all agree that the snowmelt pattern will be different, with stream flow starting earlier and ending earlier. How will that impact us? Will farmers be able to adjust to an earlier planting pattern? Probably yes. Will they attempt to have multiple plantings and harvesting in a longer summer? Probably yes, thus increasing the water use by the agricultural sector.
But stream flow from snowmelt will not be available later in the summer, creating conflict among surface water users. That suggests different methods of irrigation to minimize water losses and perhaps different crops for farming in late summer. One wonders if the NM Department of Agriculture and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts have begun to address these likely changes. They need to, and we need to have our laws and regulations such that farmers benefit when they apply water-efficient practices. Right now the farmer generally attempts to maximize revenue per acre farmed. We need to have them also maximizing revenue per acre-foot of water utilized. That is difficult when the water used is essentially free to the farmer, the only cost being the opportunity cost of not selling their water rights – a different conversation for another issue of the Sierran.
Will the consumptive irrigation requirements (CIR) change? CIR is defined as the crop requirement for water less normal precipitation. If normal precipitation changes and if the crop requirement increases due to warmer temperatures, will the CIRs need to be redefined? If so, will this create an entirely new administrative problem for the State Engineer? Not only is that a big task, it will raise the amount of water that will need to be allocated to agriculture, and that is not currently figured into the State Water Plan. Will farmers depend more on groundwater for late summer irrigation? That could be very problematic for those depending on residential wells. Will the rate of decline of the Ogallala Aquifer accelerate and impact New Mexico in the 40-year planning period, particularly in Northeast NM? If so, what is the fallback plan?
Will summer precipitation become more important? What are the implications of having more water in the tributaries of the Rio Grande and Pecos? Should we be concerned about floods, lightning, hail, and tornadoes? Are we prepared for the water quality issues that storm water creates? Should we be looking for ways to slow the flow of water down arroyos and streams to achieve greater aquifer recharge? Should we attempt to capture more rainwater prior to having it be lost to evapotranspiration, and if so, will the State Engineer allow it?
Keeping water in our rivers of course will be an issue that is important to the environmental community, since riparian wildlife needs water in the river to survive, especially during certain periods of time that vary by species. I personally believe that we need to move forward with plans for an environmental water bank where the rights to a certain amount of water belong to an organization that allows this water to remain in the river or in wetlands rather than being used for other purposes.
Many New Mexico rivers start outside of New Mexico. The allocation to each state of the water available from these rivers is governed by agreements among the states along the flow of these rivers, and these agreements, called “compacts,” were ratified by Congress. New Mexico is a party to many river compacts, with the two most important covering the Rio Grande and Pecos River. In recent years, we have not had two serious drought years in a row, but some predict increased variability due to warmer conditions, especially conditions in our oceans. If we have even two drought years in a row, we very well might have Rio Grande Compact delivery problems in one case, to Texas along the Pecos, and in the other case, to a group consisting of Texas and Southern New Mexico users along the Rio Grande. Failure to meet our river compact (and endangered species protection) obligations to have sufficient water flowing downstream could easily lead to a federal takeover of the management of our own water resources. Few want the federal government enforcing water allocations in our own State.
What if we had the biblical seven wet years followed by seven dry years? That is where storage becomes desirable. Perhaps the most recognizable form of storage is reservoirs. Should we have more reservoirs or expand the ones we have? In the past there have been mixed reviews for reservoirs as they interfere with the natural flow of water and can result in much water being lost to evaporation. especially in the warmer parts of our state.
The river compacts present limitations on increasing our reservoir capacity. Certainly the loss of reservoir capacity due to sediment filling in our reservoirs can be corrected (at a cost), but often we are not even sure how to prevent reoccurrence of the silting-in. Another form of storage is in our soil. Healthier, more absorbent soil and vegetation can help with year-to-year variations in precipitation. Some believe that excess water in wet years should be injected into our aquifers. Drought does not necessarily occur everywhere at the same time. Perhaps there are ways to adjust stream flow and the allocation among states and even Mexico if there is the right spirit of cooperation.
Right now the municipal, domestic, commercial, and industrial sectors appear to be growing most rapidly. With correction of the current over-pumping of aquifers, the projected requirement for additional water, before factoring in conservation, is about 500,000 acre-feet per year by 2040 which is a doubling of current usage. Conservation will reduce but not eliminate this need for more water. The prevailing wisdom is that agriculture will be able to adjust and use more water in wet years and less in drier years. That makes sense unless the consumptive irrigation requirements increase due to warming, in which case all bets are off.
By John Buchser
From Rio Grande Sierran, March/April 2008
It is rare to receive new tools for the environmental toolbox. Thanks to many years of persistence from activist Elaine Cimino and hydrologist Zane Spiegel, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted the Espanola Basin designation as a “sole source aquifer” (SSA). The EPA grants this protection to aquifers which can be shown to provide over 50% of drinking water to residents within the aquifer, with no other feasible sources available if the acquifer were to become contaminated. Zane was able to define a such a hydrologically connected area stretching north to south from Tres Piedras to Cochiti, and east to west from Sangre de Cristo to the Jemez, which provides water to 170,000 water users.
The designation places under EPA scrutiny any projects that are partially federally funded. This would include projects for the protection of our aquifer, such as sewage treatment plants, and also includes projects that might further put our aquifer at risk, like housing projects. Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is entirely federally funded, does not fall under the scrutiny of the EPA under the sole-source designation.
“This does not offer the level of protection our aquifer deserves, but it is a huge step towards recognition of how important our water supply is to us,” states artist/activist Elaine Cimino. Elaine’s career in teaching drawing, painting, and art history has been complemented by her efforts to protect our water. She views the risks to our water supply by the weapons research and production at Los Alamos as one of the biggest risks that downstream users face.
Hydrologist Zane Spiegel has been expressing concern for our management, or lack thereof, of water for over four decades. Zane did seminal work on the hydrology of various New Mexico aquifers back in the ’60s and ’70s; his work continues to be quoted in professional papers. His career included extensive periods working for the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer and the U.S. Geological Survey.
The Sierra Club backed the EPA designation, spanning two applications, the first of which failed for lack of adequate boundary designation of the aquifer. Ultimately, Zane was able to define eight hydrologically connected aquifers that were accepted as fulfilling the requirements of the SSA designation. The City of Santa Fe and the County of Santa Fe both objected to the second application. Overall about a dozen comments were received by the EPA, with half in support.
The Edwards Aquifer in Texas, underlying San Antonio, has been one of the most active SSAs, with recognition that the aquifer is being depleted faster than recharge, and local governmental entities subsequently placing much greater scrutiny on projects affecting recharge areas, including granting monies to study endangered and rare species. Overall, about 100 SSA designations have been granted by the EPA, from Hawaii to the East Coast. This is New Mexico’s first such designation.
Protecting the health of our citizens, by providing safe drinking water, is the ultimate goal of the EPA sole-source designation. Even after new projects that are slated to be built or are being planned are brought on-line, like the Buckman Direct-Diversion project, over 50% of our drinking water will come from our aquifer.
For more information, contact John Buchser.
Continued from left: Water Problems
There are many variables that have not yet been factored into the State Water Plan. Will we need more water for food security reasons and to deal with the potential for increasing costs of transportation, i.e. more water for local agriculture? And what if the population projections are too conservative? Will oil and gas activity in New Mexico require more water or provide a source of water? This is a highly technical question that is just beginning to be addressed. Will we build our housing so as to become more water (and energy) efficient? Will the need for more residential cooling impact water and also energy requirements? We need to both build more sensibly and find a way to retrofit existing residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental structures.
If the pattern of the availability of water is changing around the state, might we want to consider a changing pattern of population growth? Should growth be discouraged where water may become less available? Should growth be encouraged where water may become more available? Difficult questions. Perhaps a location-dependent state income-tax rate would be a way to encourage/discourage development based on water and energy availability.
If we have better water availability in the southern part of our state, will we attempt to move that water northward? Moving water north is certainly feasible when you have river systems that are flowing north to south. You simply allow less water to flow south; you do not actually have to physically move the water north. But is that equitable to regions experiencing relatively more abundant precipitation or slower growth? We may already have enough regional tensions in New Mexico without adding new reasons not to get along.
Should we be developing additional water sources or should we be focused exclusively on water conservation and managing population growth to fit with the currently projected water resources? There are many options for increasing water supplies in New Mexico, including more extensive capture of precipitation beyond roof capture but from any surface, exploitation of deep brackish water that is very plentiful along the Rio Grande rift where we have most of our population, or even attempts to capture more of the moisture that passes over our state, i.e. weather modification. Every option for more water, including the traditional method of drilling more shallow wells, comes with a set of negative implications requiring careful analysis and regulation to avoid the worst of the potential negative impacts. But if we are not able to control population growth or make drastic reductions in our water use per capita and per dollar of agricultural product, we will be forced to address the question of how to increase water supplies.
There seem to be a myriad of very difficult questions but also a variety of potential solutions that can keep us viable as a state even with relatively extreme changes in our climate. Is there anyone in a position to influence policy in New Mexico who is asking and attempting to develop the answers to these questions? Or are we waiting to see if the dire projections come about and expect to be able to deal with the problems at that time? It probably would make sense to start planning now rather than wait until there is little time to adjust. And of course we need to reduce humans’ contribution to the warming trend.
It should be obvious from this article that this author does not believe that we are responding at all adequately to the challenges of warming. Those interested in working on this problem are invited to contact the author. It matters not if the warming in New Mexico is caused by human activities or natural cycles. It has clearly been warming, and it is prudent to both be diligent in our efforts to reduce it and also learn how to adapt to it. We are dealing with stresses on both our water and energy situation and perhaps other threats to our existence related to population growth and potentially less per capita tax revenues. When you are dealing with two or three or more major changes happening, it requires a more integrated approach to planning for the future. This is not being done, and the Sierra Club wants to see more thought given to how we can improve the situation rather than the senseless competition between the Legislature and the Governor and among different parts of New Mexico, which appears to be dominating the debate.
For more information, contact Water Issues Chair Sigmund Silber.
